Concern about Atheism

[logician]

Having religion really doesn't stop anyone from doing anything (note the Catholic churches' problems). Take away man's law and enforcement, and society quickly degrades into anarchy. Only man's laws and their consequences have any real effect on behavior that society deems harmful to itself.

 

[MSizer]

Many of whom were Christians, isn't that correct?

So then who stopped Stalin or China when it invaded and took Tibet? Two atheist regimes which were left to go unchecked? Oh that is right, nobody.

Now what was the point you were trying to make?

I already made the point, but apparently you missed it. Religion had nothing to do with stopping Hitler, just like religion had nothing to do with Hitler, Stalin nor China. I could make the point that most suicide bombers and abortionist murderers are highly religious, but does that prove that religion is the reason for sucicide bombing and murder? Of course not. Your comaparison is completely fallacious. My point is that one's religion is not a factor in social cohesion except that it creates "outgroups", therefore the fact that there is more than one religion actually perpetuates contempt among peoples. Still, that contempt would take place anyway, under the guise of something other than religion.

Oh and by the way footprints, if you do want to drag the role of religion out through WWII, you may want to think again. Between their alliance with the NAZI party and the choice to turn a blind eye to the systematic elimination of the Jews despite repeated notifications by various bishops throughout Europ and South America that it had been happening, the Christians (particularly Catholics) have their fair share of skeletons in the closet.

 

[tumbleweed41]

While religion is dependent on enforced morality, morality itself is independent of religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Before coming to have a personal relationship with Jesus, I used to think I was an atheist and even joked that I always wanted to retire somewhere warm...I also used to think I was a good person.

"Personal relationship"? :sarcastic

I helped people, I obeyed the laws, I was a good son, brother, friend etc., but by my own standards. Looking at porn wasn't an issue since it was out there for the looking or downloading. Getting drunk didn't seem like a big deal either or lusting.

You still judge yourself by your own standards; it's just that those standards have changed.

That's not to say that I have been able to rid myself of these sins either. But, knowing these things are wrong, you have a greater desire to overcome these issues.

See... I don't understand this viewpoint. IMO, I have major reason to try to overcome negative things without God. I've got quite a number of ideas about how I want the world to be and how I want to be myself, and I think that when it comes right down to it, the responsibility falls on me: if I want to see change, I'll either need to do it myself or convince someone else to do it. I have no invisible gods or spirits I can rely on to pick up the slack if I don't do my share.

I think that belief in God, especially the sort of God preached by Christianity, would strip my kind of motivation away: suddenly, my vision for how the world should be is undermined, because I'd now believe that there's some other, better vision for how things should be (a.k.a. "God's plan"), and I should make my own vision secondary to that one. At the same time, I'd lose my sense of responsibility: no matter what I do, Christ will still come down and make everything perfect. My own actions will have no ultimate effect on the outcome of anything that truly matters.

On top of that, I feel like Christianity strips away personal responsibility: not only (as I touched on before) will the physical consequences of misdeeds be erased by Jesus, my very guilt for things I've done is forgiven. Without God, the effects of your actions, whether good or bad, are on your own shoulders as long as you live. I think this creates a significant incentive to make sure you do things right the first time.

So... given all that, how does your faith give you greater desire to do good? It seems to me that mainstream Christianity would actually undermine every reason I personally have for doing good.

Yeah, I was a good person, but only by my own point of view. We are so sunk if atheists are going to be setting the moral codes...

As opposed to the theists, who have done such a bang-up job for the past few millenia, right?

Sounds pretty bigoted to me and the atheists may as well join those Islamic extremists who want to make the whole world Muslim, they seem to share the same mentality.

You presume quite a bit in this post. The OP presented us with a hypothetical atheist society and asked us what we thought it would be like. Nobody's said anything about actually wanting to impose an atheist society on anyone.

 

[d3vaLL]

Oh I get the picture, it is what we have in all civilised countries now, even though they still contain religions. Atheists just want to do the same thing without religions in the picture.

Yep. Like everyone else who has a world view- they think the world would operate best from their perspective. I think that's how opinions function. Correct me if not.

Sounds pretty bigoted to me

I'd assume so- trolls don't have opinions on anything.

and the atheists may as well join those Islamic extremists who want to make the whole world Muslim, they seem to share the same mentality.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Come on troll, try harder- that's just sloppy work.

 

[Luminous]

Agnosticism is my belief, my belief isn't the right belief for everybody.

Agnosticism has no truth. An agnostic cannot rationally nor logically say, whether a deity exists or not, or whether any deity has ever existed. I differ from many agnostics though, I don't believe this knowledge is unknowable, I believe we will have this knowledge in time.

then it is far past due time to stop lying! we are all agnostic: Agnosticism is TRUTH. anything you say against it is a LIE.

 

[Luminous]

Do other species have right and wrong? Or, is it only humans who have this?

You are right, humans don't need religions to tell them what is right and wrong, there are many other people in the world who will do this for them. Atheists are pretty good at saying what is right and what is wrong, who needs other religions around when we have the religion of Atheism to do this for us.

Your post is a very good example of you telling people what is right and what is wrong. Well done, great example.

yes, other species make decisions. no Atheism CANNOT say what is right and what is wrong, you would need some sort of BELIEVE for that. just because most atheist are intellectual nice fun people doesn't means its because its a tenant of atheism lol.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Okay, so I've seen atheists say before that they wouldn't mind having a completely atheistic world, because they don't need religion for morals.

I disagree. I've heard many religious people say that religion is required for morality. Since this is their view, they must need religion to act morally. I, for one, am glad we have religion to keep people in line who, otherwise, wouldn't be able to be moral.

Wouldn't that technically only work if the people in that world were good people by nature?

Absolutely. This is why it wouldn't work. All the religious people who claim religion is necessary for morality, obviously must not be good by nature, otherwise they wouldn't need a list of rules to tell them what to do and what not to do. Fortunately, we have religious rules for these people who are not good by nature.

Like what if the people were really bad, and the society started to get more and more corrupt? Then what would atheists do to get the society back to functioning?

I'm not sure. Perhaps we would focus our energies on molesting children and covering it up, doing suicide bombings, discrimating against homosexuals, oppressing woman, scamming people out of money, or starting an inquisition to get people to act morally again.

 

[dogsgod]

I'm not sure. Perhaps we would focus our energies on molesting children and covering it up, doing suicide bombings, discrimating against homosexuals, oppressing woman, scamming people out of money, or starting an inquisition to get people to act morally again.

Touche

 

[logician]

Anyone that's read any history of warfare, particularly WW2, knows how low society can degrade to when there are no laws, and this was in countries on both sides that were very religious as well as some that weren't. The extent that people will hurt each other when given the chance is quite mind-boggling.

 

[footprints]

I already made the point, but apparently you missed it. Religion had nothing to do with stopping Hitler, just like religion had nothing to do with Hitler, Stalin nor China. I could make the point that most suicide bombers and abortionist murderers are highly religious, but does that prove that religion is the reason for sucicide bombing and murder? Of course not. Your comaparison is completely fallacious. My point is that one's religion is not a factor in social cohesion except that it creates "outgroups", therefore the fact that there is more than one religion actually perpetuates contempt among peoples. Still, that contempt would take place anyway, under the guise of something other than religion.

Oh and by the way footprints, if you do want to drag the role of religion out through WWII, you may want to think again. Between their alliance with the NAZI party and the choice to turn a blind eye to the systematic elimination of the Jews despite repeated notifications by various bishops throughout Europ and South America that it had been happening, the Christians (particularly Catholics) have their fair share of skeletons in the closet.

One sided arguments, loop sided views, painting associations from one perception only, distorts human intelligence and clouds the real view.

You say Nazi, I say Pol Pot. That is balancing the view out and making it a reasonable standpoint. Anybody can distort the picture away from reality, by telling one side of the story only.

Cheers.

 

[footprints]

While religion is dependent on enforced morality, morality itself is independent of religion.

So is the belief of many non-believers. Where did this morality come from which you speak of?

 

[footprints]

You presume quite a bit in this post. The OP presented us with a hypothetical atheist society and asked us what we thought it would be like. Nobody's said anything about actually wanting to impose an atheist society on anyone.

Isn't it a hypothetical? Are you implying this hypothetical has limitations?

Of course when we align the hypothetical with reality, which should be done, otherwise it is total fantasy, Dawkins for one is on record as stating that was his goal (God Delusion). Dawkins of course is not alone, I have spoken to many atheists who say it is their goal to get rid of religions and fully believe religions are the cause and the blame for every bad thing on earth, even posts and threads in this forum testify to this point.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Morality is formed from societal survival. When it became more advantageous for early hominids to band together as social groups, basic morality became necessary.
One could not live in a group if one feared for his/her life. A murderer would not be welcome. Perhaps driven out, or even killed for the overall survival of the group.
This is Anthropology 101.
Basic religion, "Why does the sun shine?, What makes the ground shake?", formed to provide answers to the developing inquisitive mind.
More complex religions used enforced morality as a means of control over society. Religion began to warp basic moral codes to fit those of the "man in charge".
"You must not kill, your own people, who worship XY. But when we go to war, you may kill the other tribe, for they worship XX."
Tying the moral code to religion was a means not only of control, but of excusing that which may have been once considered immoral in a smaller social tribe.
Anthropology 102

 

[whereismynotecard]

What if the people were really bad, and the society started to get more and more corrupt? Then what would atheists do to get the society back to functioning?

Make up a religion to keep people scared and obedient.

 

[tumbleweed41]

As to the OP, Atheism in no way implies a lack of moral code.
In fact, if you read a document such as the Humanist Manifesto, you may find the ethics without a religious backing to be more equitable than those enforced by religion.

 

[Alceste]

As to the OP, Atheism in no way implies a lack of moral code.
In fact, if you read a document such as the Humanist Manifesto, you may find the ethics without a religious backing to be more equitable than those enforced by religion.

A very good point. It's worth pointing out also that some of humanity's oldest, most robust and most generous systems of morality come from basically non-theistic religions - Jainism and Buddhism.

 

[Sententia]

Okay, so I've seen atheists say before that they wouldn't mind having a completely atheistic world, because they don't need religion for morals. Wouldn't that technically only work if the people in that world were good people by nature? Like what if the people were really bad, and the society started to get more and more corrupt? Then what would atheists do to get the society back to functioning?

Correct me if I am wrong... But are you declaring religion is needed for morality?

 

[Atheist Waddle Dee]

There is Virtue ethics, Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative, Contractarianism , ethical egoism, natural rights, Utilitarianism, and Desirism just to name a few normative ethic theories that atheists could adopt.

 

[Diederick]

I think rationality provides excellent ethics, with the addition of altruism. Though they might be going in against popular cultural values. What is quite certain is that we would be far better off than going with the 2000 y.o. scribblings of some bronze-age prophet. Just look at what a pathetic list the Ten Commandments makes.

And of course there are religions, like Taoism, which don't really demand anything and just promote living in harmony with everything. But they are not big religions, people prefer being pushed around a little more than that.